I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrients like fat! I'm healthier because of that.
The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo
Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer calorie counting better and it works for them, so fair enough!
You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people.
Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle.
There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily off. However elimination of carbohydrates is a tactic that's giving me awesome results, making me happy and more energetic. You do not need to consume carbohydrates to stay alive of be healthy.
A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches.
It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.
The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar.
That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense.
No, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories.
It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
There are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.
'Macronutrients' are not diet 'nutrients'. Nutrients are chemicals the body needs an external supply of. Building blocks for cells and structures. They have nothing to do with metabolism.
I don't need carbs to be alive, be healthy and be energetic. The nutrition they give me is pretty much nill relative to other food groups such as fat and protein.
I think the poster is referring to them as empty calories in the sense that they provide no nutritional value. They get processed into blood sugar very quickly but do not provide the body anything essential.
Then why am I more energetic now after starving my body of carbs, than I was before the diet when my diet existed entirely of carbs? Energy does not need to be taken from carbs to survive or be healthy.
The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo
Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer calorie counting better and it works for them, so fair enough!